alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Denied and Order filed November 3, 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00286

- CR NO. 14

- 22

- 0028 7

- CR

____________ BRADY JOSEPH RAY , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th Dist rict Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1736075 and 1736077



### ORDER

In both of these appeals, a ppellant is represented by appointed counsel,
Ma n dy Miller . Appellant ’ s brief was originally due Ju ly 18, 2022

. We have granted a total of 90 d ays to file appellant ’ s brief until S eptember 30, 2022

. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no fu rther extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed by the due date

. On O c tober4, 2022, a late brief notice w as sent. No response was filed by the due date of

October 14, 2022. On October 17, 2022, counsel filed a further motion to extend

t ime to file appellant ’ s brief. Counsel did not allege any exceptional circumstances
in the re quest.
We deny the motion to ex tend time and issue the following order.

W e order Mandy Miller to file a brief with the clerk of this c ourt in each of these appeals on or before November 1 7 , 2022 . If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the c ourt may issue an order abating th e s e appeal s and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of J ustices Wise, Jewell and Poissant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, McCl anahan and Senior Judge Willis

COLEMAN HOMES, INC. AND CINCINNATI CA SUALTY COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1769-06-2 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 19, 2006 WILLIAM JASON LYNCH

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Calvin W. Fowler, Jr.; Mist y D. Evans; Williams Mullen, A Professional Corporation, on briefs), for appellants. (Wesley G. Marshall, on brief), for appellee.
Coleman Homes, Inc. and its insurer app eal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that William Jason Lynch proved permanent and total work incapacity causally related to his October 14, 1993 work-re lated brain injury. Essentially, appellants contend the commission erred in accepting the testimony of clai mant’s treating physicians and not that of their medical experts. “A question raised by conflicti ng medical opinion is a question of fact.” Dep’t of Corr. v. Powell , 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 532, 533 (1986). “Decisions of the commission as to questions of fact, if supported by credible eviden ce, are conclusive and binding on this Court.” Manassas Ice & Fuel Co. v. Farrar , 13 Va. App. 227, 229, 409 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1991). “The fact that there is contrary evidence in the record is of no conseque nce.” Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks , 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991); see also American Filtrona Co. v. Hanford , 16 Va. App. 159, 428 S.E.2d 511 (1993). The co mmission gave greater weight to the

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - opinion of claimant’s treating physicians. See United Airlines, Inc. v. Sabol , 47 Va. App. 495, 501, 624 S.E.2d 692, 695 (2006) (holding that the commi ssion, in weighing the medical evidence, is entitled to “give[] great wei ght to the treating physician’s opinion”). We have reviewed the record and the commi ssion’s opinion and find th at this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Lynch v. Coleman Homes, Inc. , VWC File No. 165-92-78 (June 23, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affi rm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.
EX-10.23




 Exhibit 10.23 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO

 SERVICE AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of September 1, 2016 (the
“Effective Date”), is by and between RAMACO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Service Provider”) and RAMACO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
(“Customer” and together with Service Provider, the “Parties”, and each a “Party”). 

Recitals 
 WHEREAS,
the foregoing parties entered into that certain Services Agreement dated August 20, 2015 (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the foregoing parties amended the Agreement pursuant to that certain Amendment No. I to Services Agreement effective
December 31, 2015 (the “First Amendment”); and 
 WHEREAS, the foregoing parties desire to further modify
certain terms of the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment. 
 Agreement 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Service Provider and Customer agree as follows: 
 1. Fees
and Expenses. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following paragraph: 

4. Fees and Expenses. In exchange for use of the Office and Services, Customer shall pay to Service Provider a monthly
fee of SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($6,250.00) (“Rentals”). In addition to Rentals payments, Customer shall pay Service Provider a signing bonus equal to SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($75,000.00)
(the “Signing Bonus”) upon execution of this Amendment. After payment of the Signing Bonus, Customer shall pay Rentals in arrears on or before the 5th day of each calendar month for the prior calendar month, the first of which shall
occur on or before October 5, 2016. 
 2. No Other Modifications. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue
to remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding this Amendment. 

  
 Page 1 of 2 









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
date first written above by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized. 
  

			
	 RAMACO, LLC,
 a Delaware
limited liability company

		
	By:	 	/s/ Randall W. Atkins
	Name:	 	Randall W. Atkins
	Its:	 	Authorized Agent
	
	 RAMACO DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
 a
Delaware limited liability company

		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael D. Bauersachs
	Name:	 	Michael D. Bauersachs
	Its:	 	Authorized Agent



  
 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      20,117,978
<SECURITIES>                                 3,109,675
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,849,255
<PP&E>                                       5,383,989
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,019,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,213,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,474,890
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,826
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,277,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,213,466
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,677,031
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,584,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,907,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,907,205)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,907,205)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
# C_2021228EN.01002701.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/27

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Proceedings brought by All in One Star Ltd

(Case C-469/19) (1)

(2021/C 228/36)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.
 /s/ MICHAEL L. BENNETT
    
    
    
    /s/ FRANCIS G. MEYERMichael L. Bennett
    
    
    
    Francis G. MeyerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial andDirector (Principal Executive Officer)
    
    
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Dated: July 28, 2006
    
    
    
    Dated: July 28, 2006
   23
EX-10.17




 Exhibit 10.17 

SUMMARY OF 2016 ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN 

The 2016 Annual Incentive Plan (the “2016 Bonus Plan”) provides for cash bonuses based on achievement against annual bookings and
annual revenue targets established by the Company’s board of directors for fiscal 2016, and weighted equally. For each performance metric, the Company must achieve at least 90% of the target amount under the 2016 Bonus Plan to fund the bonus
pool with respect to that performance metric. If a performance metric under the 2016 Bonus Plan achieves at greater than 90% of the target amount for fiscal 2016, the funding of the bonus pool with respect to that performance metric increases on a
straight line basis up to a maximum of 115% of the target amount. Following the end of fiscal 2016, the Company’s board of directors (or its authorized committee) reviews achievements against each annual performance metric and determines the
bonus pool funding based on the Company’s achievements against the performance metrics. The annual bonus payments for each of these named executive officers were calculated based on these determinations, and for any participant that was
employed for part of fiscal 2016, pro-rated based on the time of employment with the Company during fiscal 2016.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Maureen Buie, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appellate Advocates (Caitlin Halpern of counsel), for appellant.Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), rendered September 20, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and imposed sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>;<i> Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 29, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# C_2009220EN.01001102.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA

(Case C-189/08) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Definition of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’)

2009/C 220/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuid-Chemie BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ — Place where the harmful event occurred — Place where the event which gave rise to the harm occurred (‘Handlungsort’) and place where the harm arose (‘Erfolgsort’) — Connecting criteria.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, the words ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ designate the place where the initial damage occurred as a result of the normal use of the product for the purpose for which it was intended.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
#### Goldie Goldbas et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 69242.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court’s award of $193,487.50 for the partial taking of claimants’ property was supported by the evidence and fell within the range of the expert testimony.

We reject claimants’ contention that the court was bound by the award in another proceeding for the taking of contiguous property. That determination in the other proceeding was not res judicata here because the subject matter was not the same.

Finally, the court did not err in permitting the State’s appraiser to give his opinion of value of the subject property *632even though he had not viewed the property before the taking. Because the condition of this property, which consisted of vacant land, had not substantially changed, and the effect of the taking on the degree of access to the property was apparent, the appraiser had a sufficient basis on which to base his opinion regarding the value of the land before the taking. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J.— Appropriation.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
VS Form 16-7 Supplement: 

These guidelines may assist in the completion of an application for a USDA, APHIS, 

veterinary import permit for animal derived or cell culture derived products. Applications 

that are completed adequately will expedite the review process. 

When additional information and clarification must be requested, there can be significant 

delays. This is a general or generic application, some items may not apply. Items #1-5 & 

#10 must be complete. 

PLEASE TYPE APPLICATION OR PRINT CAREFULLY. 

Illegible applications cannot be processed! 

Additional sheets may be used for certain items. 

The information contained on this supplement is needed for all cultured cells/cell lines 

and the products or extracts of the cells. This includes monoclonal antibodies, 

recombinant products, DNA, viral agents, etc. 

Most items are self explanatory, some may not be applicable. Species of origin of the cell 

line is also need (include in item #5) and information in items #11 and #12 will facilitate 

review. Please note that items #7, #8 and #9 are critical and MUST be completed. 

"Nutrient Factor" used refers to the protein/nitrogen source. If whole serum was not used, 

what was used instead must be specified. The country of origin, not company is needed. 

Mail completed and signed application (with application processing user fee) to: 

[workload dependent] 

USDA, APHIS, VS 

Product Program 

4700 River Road, Unit 40 

Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-138029) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-00099, 333-23857, 333-57869, 333-53366, 333-55488, 333-82674,333-82678, 333-82668, 333-82670, 333-82672) of Digi International Inc. of our report dated December4, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the undersigned:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: August 2, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Robert W. PeshekRobert W. Peshek, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
 This certification
accompanies the Form 10-Q/A and shall not be treated as having been filed as part
of the Form 10-Q/A. 25
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-80081, 333-33130, 333-47388, 333-70620, 333-98135, 333-108345 and 333-152164) of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2009 relating to thefinancial statements of Advanced Chip Engineering Technology Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Taipei, Taiwan 

Republic of China 

March 19, 2009
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 950 

Expressing support for the designation of October 23 as a national day 

of remembrance of the tragic 1983 terrorist bombing of the United 

States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2016 

Mr. GARRETT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of October 23 as 

a national day of remembrance of the tragic 1983 terrorist bombing of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. 

Whereas the United States deployed members of the Armed 

Forces to Lebanon in 1982 as part of a multinational 

peacekeeping force; 

Whereas early on the morning of October 23, 1983, a truck 

packed with explosives detonated outside of a building at 

Beirut International Airport that served as quarters for 

several hundred members of the United States Armed 

Forces deployed as part of the peacekeeping force; 

Whereas 241 members of the Armed Forces were killed in 

the blast; 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 950 IH 

Whereas the Americans killed included 220 Marines, members of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines-Battalion Landing 

Team, which made October 23, 1983, the deadliest day 

for the Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in 

February 1945 during World War II; 

Whereas, in addition to the Marine Corps casualties, 18 Navy 

sailors and three Army soldiers were killed, and more 

than 100 other members of the Armed Forces were injured; 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces from 39 States and 

Puerto Rico died while serving in Beirut, Lebanon, from 

1982 to 1984; 

Whereas, on the same day as the bombing of the Marine 

Corps Barracks, another suicide bomber killed 58 French 

paratroopers housed at another building in Beirut; and 

Whereas it is fitting and proper that the events of October 

23, 1983, and the members of the United States Armed 

Forces who died in Beirut on that day are recognized 

through the establishment of a national remembrance day 

on October 23: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a national day 

3 of remembrance for members of the United States 

4 Armed Forces who were killed or injured by the ter5 rorist attack on the United States Marine Corps 

6 Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, on October 23, 1983; 

7 and 

8 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

9 to support and participate in appropriate cereVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:05 Dec 08, 2016 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR950.IH HR950

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 950 IH 

1 monies, programs, and other activities in observance 

2 of such a national day of remembrance. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS